Using the Functional Resonance Analysis Method (FRAM) in Aviation Safety: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The functional resonance analysis method (FRAM) is a system-based method to understand highly complex sociotechnical systems. Besides learning from safety occurrences or undesirable states, FRAM can be used to understand how things go well in a system, by identifying gaps between “work as imagined” (WAI) and “work as done” (WAD). FRAM is increasingly used in many domains and can enhance our understanding of a complex system and proposes strategies to refine the work design. This systematic review identified 108 FRAM research papers from 2006–2019. Most of these papers were conducted by European researchers and employed qualitative methods such as document analysis, interviews, and focus groups with subject matter experts (SMEs) and observations to develop WAI and WAD. Despite being used in healthcare, construction, and maritime sectors among others, aviation was the most commonly explored domain in FRAM studies. The 26 FRAM studies in aviation explored many aspects of the aviation industry, including Air Traffic Control (ATC) systems, cockpit operation, ground handling, maintenance, and a range of past safety incidents, like runway incursions. This paper also characterises the FRAM studies focused on aviation in terms of the common methods and steps used to build FRAM and the available software tools to build FRAM nets. Current FRAM illustrates its advantages in capturing the dynamic and nonlinear nature of complex systems and facilitates our understanding and continual improvement of complex systems. However, there are some critical issues in FRAM use and interpretation, such as the consistency of methods and complexity and reliability of data collection methods, which should be considered by researchers and FRAM users in industry.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".